This site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalised service.
By using this site you agree to our use of cookies.
Please read our cookie notice for more information
on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.

The full functionality of our site is not supported on your browser version, or you may have 'compatibility mode' selected. Please turn off compatibility mode, upgrade your browser to at least Internet Explorer 9, or try using another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.

IAS 39 — Items not added to the agenda

Background

This page presents a summary of items not added to the IFRS Interpretations Committee's agenda in relation to IAS 39Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement together with the Committee's public explanation of the reasons for not adding those items to its agenda.

Related Discussions

The IFRS Interpretations Committee discussed how an issuer would account for a particular mandatorily convertible financial instrument in accordance with IAS 32 and IAS 39 or IFRS 9. The financial instrument has a stated maturity date and, at maturity, the issuer must deliver a variable number of its own equity instruments to equal a fixed cash amount—subject to a cap and a floor, which limit and guarantee, respectively, the number of equity instruments to be delivered.

The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify whether an entity (Entity A) should account for three transactions separately or aggregate and treat them as a single derivative, and how to apply paragraph IG B.6 IAS 39 in addressing this issue.

The IFRS Interpretations Committee considered the issue of whether, in its separate financial statements, an entity should apply the provisions of IAS 36 'Impairment of Assets' or IAS 39 'Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement' to test its investments in subsidiaries, joint ventures, and associates carried at cost for impairment.

The Interpretations Committee received a request seeking clarification on whether a regulatory asset or regulatory liability should be recognised in a particular situation in which a regulated entity is permitted to recover costs, or required to refund some amounts, independently of the delivery of future services.

The Interpretations Committee received a request for guidance on the circumstances in which the restructuring of Greek government bonds (GGB) should result in derecognition in accordance with IAS 39 of the whole asset or only part of it.

The Committee received a request for guidance on how an entity should account for the impairment of financial assets with a fixed maturity after they have been reclassified from the available-for-sale (‘AFS’) category to loans and receivables.

The IFRIC received a request to add an item to its agenda on providing guidance on whether a contract that (a) obliges an entity to deliver (sell) at a fixed price a fixed number of units of a non-financial item that is readily convertible to cash and (b) that provides the counterparty with the option to purchase also at a fixed price a fixed number of additional units of the same item can be assessed as two separate contracts for the purpose of applying paragraphs 5─7 of IAS 39.